Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Video Games Discussion › Call of Duty: Black Ops II
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Call of Duty: Black Ops II - Page 2

post #16 of 212
5/5/12 at 8:57pm
Why slow the game down and make it more open? Then have two series that are the same? Screw that.

CoD is at its best when its smaller, tighter, faster. There is a reason the smaller more action heavy maps are usually the most voted on. MW3 sucked mainly because the maps are so big and slow the pace of the action.

CoD is first and foremost and high adrelanine action title. Tactics and planning come second. If I wanted more of athinking man's game, that's why Battlefield exists. They are two different monsters within the same genre, and cater to different people. I for one wouldn't touch CoD if it became a BF clone.

Quake, Unreal, TF2 are a bit too fast paced for me.
Edited by Mad Lust Envy - 5/5/12 at 9:05pm
Reply

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

post #17 of 212
5/5/12 at 9:00pm
Thread Starter 

I found MW3 to have the most cramped maps and even more fast paced than BLOPS. That's why I hated it. BLOPS had far larger maps than MW3.

 

COD is generic as heck. You have to admit that.

 

Also slowing it down won't make it like BF at all. BF and COD are vastly different on all fronts.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy View Post

Why slow the game down and make it more open? Then have two series that are the same? Screw that.
CoD is at its best when its smaller, tighter, faster. There is a reason the smaller more action heavy maps are usually the most voted on. MW3 sucked mainly because the maps are so big and slow the pace of the action.
Reply
post #18 of 212
5/5/12 at 9:10pm
I edited my last post.

MW3 and fast paced... does not compute. That game and its huge and cramped maps made it hard to find a good pace in the game. Bigger is definitely not always better.

And I disagree heavily on BLOPS. The maps were small to medium sized with a few large ones. MW3 had huge maps all around, with very few medium to small ones.

CoD4:MW had the best maps, and guess what? They were small to medium. There is a reason its the best, and maps is on the top of it for me. They were simpler and action packed. They kept the pace fast, without cluttering up the space like MW3. BLOPS had a MW1 feel in the maps, but slightly bigger.
Reply
post #19 of 212
5/8/12 at 12:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie_X View Post

they ruined the COD name a bit

 

I personally thought that after COD 2...

Reply
post #20 of 212
5/8/12 at 1:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy View Post

MW3 sucked mainly because the maps are so big and slow the pace of the action.
 

 

I wouldn't say the maps were big on mw3. I do agree they were a big part of why the game was terrible though. i have no intentions of getting cod9, after putting days worth of time in the previous 4.

 

How bad the developers were for mw3 just ruined any love i had for the series.


Edited by Weee - 5/8/12 at 1:24pm
Reply
post #21 of 212
5/8/12 at 5:18pm
Thread Starter 

The maps weren't big at all and they had a horrible layout. Campers everywhere and some areas were too narrow.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weee View Post

 

I wouldn't say the maps were big on mw3. I do agree they were a big part of why the game was terrible though. i have no intentions of getting cod9, after putting days worth of time in the previous 4.

 

How bad the developers were for mw3 just ruined any love i had for the series.

Reply
post #22 of 212
5/10/12 at 9:49am

With the same outdated graphics and old engine, you're really only paying for a new campaign, some multiplayer maps and a few new features.

Reply
post #23 of 212
5/10/12 at 3:14pm
Thread Starter 

This ^ 

 

All the COD games have old outdated graphic, but then again it's the gameplay that counts. I with the engine was different as it looks crap.

 

Also every COD game to me feels like an overpriced expansion pack.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hellothar2 View Post

With the same outdated graphics and old engine, you're really only paying for a new campaign, some multiplayer maps and a few new features.

Reply
post #24 of 212
5/10/12 at 3:43pm
The reason they still using the CoD4 engine is because this is the last CoD on the current gen systems. It'd be just incredibly stupid to make a new engine with the new consoles so close to coming out. The next systems will have a new engine. People b*tch and complain way too much, like graphics make a damn game.

What's funny is that Halo still looks like Halo 3, Gears of War 3 still looks like GoW, console version Battlefield 3 still looks like the first Bad Company, etc. Graphics for specific FPS/TPS series haven't changed practically the entire life of current gen consoles. CoD just gets hated on because it's so popular. Everyone loves picking on the popular kid.

Don't get me wrong I hated MW3, but graphics ain't the issue.

No other FPS plays as fluid and as tight as CoD, and that's what counts the most: the GAMEPLAY.
Edited by Mad Lust Envy - 5/10/12 at 3:46pm
Reply
post #25 of 212
5/10/12 at 7:03pm
Thread Starter 

Black Ops II will be on the current gen as well. People do complain a lot about the graphics but I always value gameplay over them, but having nice graphics is a bonus. 

 

I think Halo Reach looks improved over Halo 3, but it's not a huge leap at all. The current systems are fully tapped and the best you will see on the current gen, IMO, is Crysis 2. There's only so far a console can go graphics wise, and the next gen is sure to be a big improvement. I only hope it will be on par with some PC's graphics.

 

I think everyone bullies COD because well, almost everything is recycled, the games really aren't that good, and Activision is just money grabbing with the name. Hardly any effort is put into the games anymore. Really the COD series is kinda blerg at times to me. MW3 is the worst in the series, COD4 is the best (but the servers for PS3 are messed up), and BLOPS is second best, MW2 being good but not great, and WaW being total poo. I really hated WaW, but this was Treyarchs first adventure into the current COD formula.

 

COD does have the tightest controls for any FPS game, so I will agree, but I prefer the slightly sluggish feels of games like BF3 and Killzone 3. I think the added "weight" to the controls makes the game feel more involving. I just find it more rewarding in BF3 to blast some one away, hearing the guns roar, the whole game play experience it better to me.

 

Back to BLOPSII. I loved BLOPS a lot, so I am hoping for a big improvement to Treyarchs formula. We'll never get a good MW game again, so my money is on BLOPSII. They did everything right that Infinity Ward has done wrong with MW2 and MW3.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy View Post

The reason they still using the CoD4 engine is because this is the last CoD on the current gen systems. It'd be just incredibly stupid to make a new engine with the new consoles so close to coming out. The next systems will have a new engine. People b*tch and complain way too much, like graphics make a damn game.
What's funny is that Halo still looks like Halo 3, Gears of War 3 still looks like GoW, console version Battlefield 3 still looks like the first Bad Company, etc. Graphics for specific FPS/TPS series haven't changed practically the entire life of current gen consoles. CoD just gets hated on because it's so popular. Everyone loves picking on the popular kid.
Don't get me wrong I hated MW3, but graphics ain't the issue.
No other FPS plays as fluid and as tight as CoD, and that's what counts the most: the GAMEPLAY.
Reply
post #26 of 212
5/11/12 at 6:42am
Maybe if everyone didn't buy ever cod release they'd actually feel the need to make improvements.
Reply
post #27 of 212
5/11/12 at 1:50pm
I don't think it's a lack of trying. On IW's side, they've tried to make everything bigger and filled with more stuff. It didn't work out.

On Treyarch's side, they have been consistently improving on the formula, and attempting to do something new, instead of just adding more and more of the same stuff.

As for the graphics engine, it doesn't bother me, because the current one plays like a winner, each and every single time. No other game is as responsive to the player. It looks dated, but that's more of an issue with current gen not being able to handle 60fps.

They could certainly make it look 'better' if they cut the framerate by half (Halo, Battlefield, Gears of War), but keeping it at 60fps is what gives it that ultra responsive look and feel. Any of the other popular games CAN'T run at 60fps without taking a massive hit on visual fidelity. Of course, whiners just don't understand limitations.

And people bitch about it being the same... the same that can be said about Battlefield, Halo, Gears... they are ALL the same as the previous installments with some added features. But no one complains... why? Because they're not as popular as CoD. Halo is close, but not quite.

Seriously, I went through Gears of War 3, and it felt exactly the same as the first game. Halo...it hasn't changed since Halo 2, sans a few features and shinier graphics. Battlefield has been the same since the first Bad Company.

Problem?

BTW, I'm not complaining. Each game has their own look and feel. If you try to change it too much, they won't feel like the same series (look at Parasite Eve which radically changes with every installment, ruining any chances for a cohesive series feel). You can only do so much before every FPS or TPS starts being a carbon copy of one another. The last Medal of Honor was a direct Battlefield clone with smaller maps. People caught on quickly, which is why that game bombed.

on game
Edited by Mad Lust Envy - 5/11/12 at 2:03pm
Reply
post #28 of 212
5/16/12 at 7:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie_X View Post

I really don't like how fast paced COD is at time, that's why I play BF3 more. It's more rewarding to me when you can sneak up on someone and get them with the knife rather than running up to them and panic knifing them. Kinda stupid IMO. COD does need to change it's gameplay A LOT! Slow the game down and make it more open like BF. Still keep some of the speed but give you bigger maps and more open spaces to run. Like BLOPS, but much bigger maps and slightly slower gameplay.

 

Instead of stopping power they should let you chose an ammo type for your gun. Lets say you can use hollow point rounds, the advantage would be increased power but your gun would have less accuracy and a higher amount of kick back. I think adding different ammo types would be cool. Let the shotgun have slug rounds, the drawback is a narrower spread with more kick back, but you get more distance and higher accuracy. 

 

Using Lightweight should make you carry less ammo, thus making you move faster, plus you have less armor and health. This balances out the perk a lot.

 

Steady Aim should be able to lower your total speed when it comes to when looking down the sights. I feel Steady Aim should only effect LDS aiming and not normal aiming. Higher accuracy at the cost of faster aiming.

 

Quick Draw should make your aiming much quicker but also gives you less accuracy and your aim is more unsteady and the barrel of your gun will wonder more.

 

Marathon should be taken out completely. No way anyone has unlimited stamina. Also they should not let you use Marathon and Lightweight at the same time. Helps balance the game a bit.

 

What do you think?

 

 

There's alot of perks that make the game unrealistic personally I think its just fun. Lightweight + Steady Aim + Marathon + SMG so you can move even faster is lots of fun. Running through the maps shooting people in the face without aiming down your sight is rocks, especially on small maps. I do like to see martybomb return though, I know this will raise alot of eyebrows but come on, its just too funny

Reply
post #29 of 212
5/17/12 at 4:52am

No offense to any of you Blops guys, but Blops 2 is going to be and looks like rubbish. Cod meets Crysis meets Battlefield 2142 meets TimeShift = Blops 2?

 

Sorry but after Modern Warfare, the rest of the COD franchise has been rubbish, but it's funny I still bought MW3 and MW2 for it's MP...ha!

 

I actually enjoyed World at War and bit of Black Ops tbh, was bit different the way it was presented.

Reply
post #30 of 212
7/7/12 at 7:39am

Even if this thread is old, I agree. Blops 2 is going to be pretty bad. CoD already started to deteriorate after 4, so it's no surprise that they really don't care anymore, they have everyone sucked in.

 

It's a shame, I miss my favorite FPS :(

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Video Games Discussion

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Video Games Discussion › Call of Duty: Black Ops II